Last weekend, I decided to do some cleaning and throwing away of unwanted items that I'd collected over the years. In a drawer, I fould a dvd called 'Naughty Victorians'. A friend gave it to me about 5 years ago, along with some other dvd's, and I'd forgotten about it. Out of curiosity, I popped it in the dvd player thinking it was an old Charlie Chaplin movie, or something innocent. Well, I was amazed that it was a collection of very explicit "stag" movies from the early 1900's, up until the 1920's or so. Most of the movies are very poorly produced (think of a Charlie Chaplin movie, but with very bad lighting), but you can clearly see everything.

I'd always thought that people of this era were somewhat puritan in their attitudes, so I was surprised that there is visual documentation on just how "perverted" they actually were. :-) It got me to thinking. Have people always been "perverted"? If the art of film-making had somehow been invented 100 years earlier than it was, would we have stag movies from the early 1800's?

From what I've googled, the majority of these films were made to be shown in waiting rooms of brothels, to give the customer some visual stimulation while waiting for his turn. And a lot of the guys in the films are wearing very obvious disguises..i.e. over the top moustaches, wigs, etc. But the women in these films don't have noticeable disguises.

I've become somewhat fascinated with stag movies, not the actual movies, but the production, etc. How did they recruit the "actors"? There's one scene called "hillbilly frolics" and I swear, the person who did this film must've knocked on some random doors in Kentucky asking the homeowners if they'd like to make a stag movie, until they found someone willing. I've googled a bit to find out more about how these films were made, etc..but it's nearly impossible to google something like this. Are there any legitimate (non-explicit) websites where I can learn more about these films?

OP here. Another thing that I noticed about these movies is that MOST of the male "actors" are quite handsome, even by todays standards. And most of the women are dog ugly, by any standard. There's one guy in particular, he looks like a typical guy from the roaring 20's. If you plopped him into a bar in any city today, he'd have women crawling all over him. I just found it odd that the men were so attractive, yet the women were ugly. It seems to be the opposite in these types of movies today.

You didn't know? As soon as any technology is invented it is used for porn. I've seen dirty daguerreotypes. On the first day some scientist creates an image of a bowl of flowers, that very night he's trying to find a woman to pose naked. And as soon as you have the technology to capture motion, you have to try to capture the most basic of all human activities. OK, maybe Eadweard Muybridge didn't actually capture sex, but he did have plenty of naked people. The next guy sure did.

Google "pompeii frescoes" sometime. Stag pictures have been around since the invention of something to draw with. As for "Victorian attitudes," read "The Pearl" or some of the other porn novels of the period. There is nothing new under the sun.

If the art of film-making had somehow been invented 100 years earlier than it was, would we have stag movies from the early 1800's?

I believe the answer is...Yes.
As you may have found thru your searching, there's a lot of images (meaning photographs or such era-specific equivalent, as opposed to paintings and other artwork) classed under Vintage or Retro, and while this usually means 1960s-1980s (yeah, that definitely sucks - the 1980s, when I was in high school & college, are vintage times now! ), there's a lot that supposedly* comes from the 1880s and 1890s (and earlier - some are marked 1860s) which in fact is more hardcore than the images from a few decades later. It is a bit amusing to see various positions and devices that people would think of as 'modern' in images over a century-plus old.

*Actually, I believe this is true in the majority of such images, as the images match the look of non-'stag' images from the same era, and it seems not worth the time for such websites to take modern images of people in period costumes/hair styles etc and back date the photos look to that period.

Back up even to the Khujraho, cave paintings of gorgeous dancing nude women from India. Just try and tell me that wasn't about sex in some way. And we won't even talk about the Kama Sutra.

What about the links? It would be very cool if you could post the video somehow....

I've been trying to figure out how to save this movie to my hard drive, but haven't figured it out yet. I may post it on my blog, I'll have to see what their rules are about posting explicit images first.

If it's almost 100 years old, is it still considered porn? or is it considered "art"?

...I've become somewhat fascinated with stag movies, not the actual movies, but the production, etc. How did they recruit the "actors"? There's one scene called "hillbilly frolics" and I swear, the person who did this film must've knocked on some random doors in Kentucky asking the homeowners if they'd like to make a stag movie, until they found someone willing...

Well I think it's safe to assume the "actresses" were prostitutes. The actors probally were just random men off the street or members of the production staff. Or the actresses' pimps managers.

The first porno movies I saw, more than 50 years ago, were clearly made in europe during the early silent film era. (The style of clothes, especially in the beach scenes made this obvious.) The women were fat and homely. But the strangest thing about the films was that all the men wore Lone Ranger-type masks.

I believe the answer is...Yes.
As you may have found thru your searching, there's a lot of images (meaning photographs or such era-specific equivalent, as opposed to paintings and other artwork) classed under Vintage or Retro, and while this usually means 1960s-1980s (yeah, that definitely sucks - the 1980s, when I was in high school & college, are vintage times now! ), there's a lot that supposedly* comes from the 1880s and 1890s (and earlier - some are marked 1860s) which in fact is more hardcore than the images from a few decades later. It is a bit amusing to see various positions and devices that people would think of as 'modern' in images over a century-plus old.

*Actually, I believe this is true in the majority of such images, as the images match the look of non-'stag' images from the same era, and it seems not worth the time for such websites to take modern images of people in period costumes/hair styles etc and back date the photos look to that period.

I've read a book about the sexual aspects of the American Civil War. There were chapters about (and examples of) the pornography the soldiers owned - old black and white daguerreotypes that were as explict as anything you'd see in Hustler.

I'd always thought that people of this era were somewhat puritan in their attitudes, so I was surprised that there is visual documentation on just how "perverted" they actually were. :-) It got me to thinking. Have people always been "perverted"? If the art of film-making had somehow been invented 100 years earlier than it was, would we have stag movies from the early 1800's?

If the technology had been available, we would have stag films from early Massachusetts Colony, Spain under the Inquisition, and John Calvin's Geneva.

I've read a book about the sexual aspects of the American Civil War. There were chapters about (and examples of) the pornography the soldiers owned - old black and white daguerreotypes that were as explict as anything you'd see in Hustler.

Except everything was real.

There were "French postcards" (which werent' necessarily French of course) from the 1890s that pictured acts of bestiality between women and ponies. Not sure why they went with men or other women. There was a lot of gay erotica of muscle men as well. I've no idea where a farmer in Iowa or Tennessee would get such stuff but it turns up in strange places.

There was an episode of Boardwalk Empire in which characters were watching one of these in 1920 on a hand turned projector. I wondered

1- If they were using a clip from an actual one
2- If the FCC would allow them to use a clip from an actual one

I'd always thought that people of this era were somewhat puritan in their attitudes, so I was surprised that there is visual documentation on just how "perverted" they actually were. :-)

As a student of all things Victorian this comes as no suprise. They had their kinks and quirks as we all do, just not as apt to interfer with social order by making them public.

Why do you think they call a particular type of penis piercing a Prince Albert? Per historical information the ring was to be threaded with a ribbon and tied to his leg to prevent his nether parts from offending the ladies. I guess only he could tell us if there were any other advantages to it.

And Queen Victoria is said to have had a tattoo. And an affair of hearts, if not of bodies, with her stablekeeper. So, not so conservative perhaps?

Some of you may find of interest a series of poignant, nearly innocent photographs of prostitutes in the Storyville sector of New Orleans. These were filmed by E. J. Bellocq a gentleman of color. Not only are they arousing of a gentle sort of stimulation to the curious but also of compassion.

I have a friend who has a HUGE collection of vintage porn and erotic ephemera. Before movies, there were books and scrolls and sculptures. And some of it quite perverted so fetish and kink has existed in many, many cultures for THOUSANDS of years.

And if you want to see some of it without googling, go to sites like XHamster or YouPorn and search for "vintage". It is available without paying for it.

See Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter, by Thomas Cahill, for an interesting discussion of surviving ancient Greek porn/erotica and what it says about their culture. (For one thing, there was, surprisingly, a clear and sharp dividing line between a nude statue meant for public display, and explicitly sexual stuff meant for private enjoyment.)

I have a friend who has a HUGE collection of vintage porn and erotic ephemera. Before movies, there were books and scrolls and sculptures. And some of it quite perverted so fetish and kink has existed in many, many cultures for THOUSANDS of years.

And if you want to see some of it without googling, go to sites like XHamster or YouPorn and search for "vintage". It is available without paying for it.

Mitochondrial Eve's mate probably relieved stress occasionally by going off into the woods with some clay or wood figurine even more primitive than the Venus of Willendorf.

Some of those films could be rare, and valuable. There are porn collectors, and like all other collectors, they'll pay a pretty penny to complete their collection. They'll probably pay someone called Pretty Penny for something too.

While there certainly was porn made back in the dawn of filmmaking, keep in mind that things are not always as they appear. Some of the material that's marketing as "antique" porn is modern stuff that was just shot to look like an old film. There is a niche market for this stuff and it's often cheaper to produce new "stag" movies than go looking for the genuine article.

I read a (non-fiction) book about early American history back in colonial days (the 1700's), and there were little 'books' featuring pornographic engravings or woodcuts available to a gentleman of means for his tittilation and edification. Flipped their powdered wigs over porn, even back in George Washington's day, they did!

Mitochondrial Eve's mate probably relieved stress occasionally by going off into the woods with some clay or wood figurine even more primitive than the Venus of Willendorf.

This was what I came to post - not word for word, but I really suspect that a lot of those paleolithic 'Earth Mother Goddess' statues were porn made by guys with low tech and a lot of time on their hands - so to speak.

Last edited by Attack from the 3rd dimension; 12-16-2010 at 06:18 PM..

OP here. Another thing that I noticed about these movies is that MOST of the male "actors" are quite handsome, even by todays standards. And most of the women are dog ugly, by any standard. There's one guy in particular, he looks like a typical guy from the roaring 20's. If you plopped him into a bar in any city today, he'd have women crawling all over him. I just found it odd that the men were so attractive, yet the women were ugly. It seems to be the opposite in these types of movies today.

My guess is that most of the women were prostitutes. Back in such a 'proper' era, you'd have to find someone who was willing in a surreptitious way, which wouldn't be very fruitful until you started to get to prostitute level. I don't know if that is a complete explanation for the unattractiveness of the women, but I would suspect it's a factor.

While there certainly was porn made back in the dawn of filmmaking, keep in mind that things are not always as they appear. Some of the material that's marketing as "antique" porn is modern stuff that was just shot to look like an old film. There is a niche market for this stuff and it's often cheaper to produce new "stag" movies than go looking for the genuine article.

I've seen that claim made, but the authenticity of the dress and surroundings is usually far greater than even the highest budget current, mainstream porn. It might be plausible, except that vintage porn is a tiny niche market, and it wouldn't pay.

My guess is that most of the women were prostitutes. Back in such a 'proper' era, you'd have to find someone who was willing in a surreptitious way, which wouldn't be very fruitful until you started to get to prostitute level. I don't know if that is a complete explanation for the unattractiveness of the women, but I would suspect it's a factor.

It depends on the era. The girls in the 1920s classic "A Free Ride" come across as the same sort who would do a "Girls Gone Wild" video of today. Before home video, there was less risk to making a sex film - they were sold under the counter or projected for a fee at mens events, aka "smokers".

Why do you think they call a particular type of penis piercing a Prince Albert? Per historical information the ring was to be threaded with a ribbon and tied to his leg to prevent his nether parts from offending the ladies. I guess only he could tell us if there were any other advantages to it.

I agree with you that the stereotype of the Victorians as being universally prudish is a myth, but I have a hard time believing this story about Prince Albert--I've heard it before, and it always set off my BS meter. Could you please cite the "historical information" that substantiates this rumor?

I agree with you that the stereotype of the Victorians as being universally prudish is a myth, but I have a hard time believing this story about Prince Albert--I've heard it before, and it always set off my BS meter. Could you please cite the "historical information" that substantiates this rumor?

The Wikipedia article, which I did NOT need to see, says the claims about Prince Albert were invented in the 1970s by a pair of piercers.

As for "Victorian attitudes," read "The Pearl" or some of the other porn novels of the period.

Now that you brought it up...

Anyone really read "The Pearl"? I have a copy; it's a thick book, just a collection of erotic short stories, but the one thing that strikes me is that all the stories seem to be written by the same author, and he doesn't seem to have any real sexual experience whatsoever, just a wild, boringly-repeated fantasy.

For example, ALL of his females ejaculate profusely over their male partners. Every time.

Anyone really read "The Pearl"? I have a copy; it's a thick book, just a collection of erotic short stories, but the one thing that strikes me is that all the stories seem to be written by the same author, and he doesn't seem to have any real sexual experience whatsoever, just a wild, boringly-repeated fantasy.

For example, ALL of his females ejaculate profusely over their male partners. Every time.

Anyone else feel this way about the author?

Isn't this how you can tell if something is real pornography?

Victorian pornography is interesting, to the extent that most of what survives and gets reprinted is of fairly high literary quality. Especially when compared to modern porn. It also features every "perversion" that can be found in modern writing. Some of it is far more modern in tone than any "real" literature contemporaries were writing. Because flagellation is the "English vice" bruises abound, both for men and women. And everybody "spends" each and every time.

I just realized you may mean that the woman literally squirt rather than merely orgasm. I don't remember that as being comon anywhere.

AFAIK, all of it was privately printed, mostly anonymously though some under pseudonyms. Young gentlemen knew where to find it and buy it. No stores would touch these books, although I wouldn't be surprised if back-room deals could be made. Many picture books were produced to accompany these, though these mostly haven't survived and very few get reprinted. We know a lot less about working class porn. The upper classes achieved true decadence if these books are to be believed.

Anyone really read "The Pearl"? I have a copy; it's a thick book, just a collection of erotic short stories, but the one thing that strikes me is that all the stories seem to be written by the same author, and he doesn't seem to have any real sexual experience whatsoever, just a wild, boringly-repeated fantasy.

For example, ALL of his females ejaculate profusely over their male partners. Every time.

Anyone else feel this way about the author?

Look at our pornography. All women are bisexuals who will have sex with people they just met. Do you think that's a realistic depictation or that all porno movies are written by the same guy? Pornography is about sexual fantasies not reality.